Americans, including teenagers, have had access to firearms for decades before Columbine and related tragedies. These things didn't occur before, at least not on the scale we see now. The presence or absence of firearms does not seem to explain the situation. Perhaps this video by psychologist Philip Zimbardo touches on one part of the problem: the digital world and its effect on the young, especially regarding school and control. (The video goes in an unrelated direction for a while, but stay with it to the end.) It does require a little thought to correlate to the present discussion, but it's there if you look.

Before emotional and well-meaning people dissect my post, I ask that for this consideration: rarely does a historical event or trend have a single cause. This current horrible trend of mass killings is probably as complex as anything else we see in history (if it were simple, it would have stopped by now). By the way, if the video is accurate in identifying a problem, that problem could be worse than gun violence in its broader consequences on society, whether American, European, whomever.

Um, I guess the dufus who wrote this article is not aware of the successful role played by militia in Columbia's recent guerilla. Or the problems they are causing us in Afghanistan.
Also the dufus is not aware that the Bill of Rights deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL rights and that it would be wholly irrational to assume that the 2nd amendment is intended to confer a collective right of some sort. Especially when the same phrase "the right of the people" is also used in the first and fourth amendments.
And the dufus is not aware that "well-regulated" was an 18th century term meaning "well-trained".
And the dufus is not aware that under canons of interpretation, the absolute phrase "A well-regulated militia being necessary..." is a preamble and does not restrict the operative clause "the right of the people...".
Finally, the dufus is not aware that the "security of a free state" refers to the security of the several states individually, not to the security of the United States as a whole. If the dufus had read the entire Bill of Rights he would know that the term "state" as used therein refers to one of the several states.
I am getting really bored with idiot journalists trying to interpret the Constitution. If you haven't studied constitutional law, shut up.

"the successful role played by militia in Columbia's recent guerilla"
Colombia? Are you referring to the successful role of the FARC in running a decades-long kidnapping, extortion and drug-running racket under the guise of a Communist revolution? Or the successful role of hooded right-wing paramilitaries in massacring those they believed to be sympathetic to the revolutionaries?

Dufus or not, I really don't see how your comment hits upon any of his points, other than restoring the 18th century meaning of the terminology.
His main argument; that the militia is sort of useless in protecting against a tyrannical government stands. For example you give: Afghanistan and Colombia. As he says:
"Popular militias are overwhelming likely to foster not democracy or the rule of law, but warlordism, tribalism and civil war. ...we see that militias of armed private citizens rip apart weak democratic states in order to prey upon local populations in authoritarian sub-states or fiefdoms."
So he doesn't say that they are useless in military terms. They are useless in political terms, for defence of republics.

More importantly, and this links itself with civil defence against crime, there are "soft", and much more effective ways of preserving democracy/rule of law. Political scientists have for a long time found what "structural" characteristics of a society give stability to a democracy, as well as allow democratic control against tyranny (no tyranny without a major crisis, as in Germany, or weak "structural" characteristics, but USA is well out of that zone for the most part).

Obviously I was referring to the right-wing militia in Colombia. That is the only example of the many cited in the column in which militia activity in a democratic country successfully resists an anti-democratic internal threat. In all the other examples, the country was not democratic in the first place (Lebanon, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, pre-war Japan, Tsarist Russia, Warlord China, etc.) or the threat was not anti-democratic. The fascists assumed power in Germany because they had popular support, and did not do so by force. (I could also argue that Germany was not democratic, since Hindenburg had been governing as a dictator using emergency powers anyway, though I doubt the author of the article knows that.)

So we have Colombia, and the successful examples of asymmetrical warfare against foreign invaders (Vietnam, Afghanistan). Face it, asymmetrical warfare works great. Stupid column.

Why? I had nothing to do with unstable democracies, or rule or non-rule of law. Like you had nothing to do with drafting of the US constitution, correct? Surely merely living in US doesn't give you the "instinct" of knowing what is necessary for maintenance of stable democracies? On the other hand, comparative studies of countries which have transitioned into democracy reveal patterns of conditions necessary for the maintenance of such.
And while it is true that the Nazi's had "popular support", there was also considerable usage of thugs and violence; with the tacit support from the military and the state. You know; by the extreme right? You do not see the proximity of denouncing political opponents as "Enemies" between the two countries? Oh, it's Communists as always, but Obama is also a Muslim, and so on and so forth.
EDIT: As he says: "and since history has demonstrated that militias are not necessary but actively pernicious to the security of a free state, the rest of the amendment simply drops."
And neither were the right-wing militias in Colombia "prodemocratic" (I take this from the reference to their fight against the anti-democratic internal threat), or pro-rule of law.
"In all the other examples, the country was not democratic in the first place"
Yes, but that's the point, isn't it? No rule of law, or democracy, unless conditions are met, and no breakdown of this unless conditions change for the worse.
"Face it, asymmetrical warfare works great."
In the same vein; asymmetrical warfare succeeds when the enemy fails in state-building. In the US example, this would be possible, and therefore asymmetrical warfare would fare quite worse. As for foreign invaders... The aliens? Who exactly is a threat to US from outside?

Similarity* not proximity.
What I am aiming at is the destruction of amicable political conflict where the other side is an enemy, rather than an opponent. The other side is no longer merely mistaken, but rather: Evil, wanting to destroy everything that is Good and True. This of course is the level of discourse in civil wars: the "bourgeois" motivations of non-communists, or "petty-bourgeois" tendencies of the Communist competitors. Or, on the other side: Jews and their international conspiracies (though I do think Muslims are more in fashion today).
And this is the "right to treason" that the author speaks of. A denounciation of the democratic institutions because the "enemy" can win; hoodwinking the sheeple and what not.

"Free state" as used in the 2nd amendment means one of the several states, which were by definition republican and democratic (I assume you know that article 4 of the U.S. constitution provides that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.")

By "being necessary to the security of a free state" the preamble of the second amendment refers specifically to each of the several states mentioned elsewhere in the constitution.

The dufus author's statement "history has demonstrated that militias are not necessary but actively pernicious to the security of a free state" is fatuous because the examples he cites are not free states within the meaning of the 2nd amendment, and therefore his examples do nothing to disprove the 2nd amendment's premise. Colombia is, of the examples he cites, the only one that remotely resembles a "free state" withing the meaning of the second amendment, having had a fairly stable republican form of government, and in that case right-wing militias restored democracy, disproving his point.

If the author had any legal training, he would know that the absolute phrase "A well-regulated militia..." is a preamble and is not, under canons of intepretation, used to restrict the operative clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...." Madison studied law and was well aware of canons of interpretation. If he had intended to say "The right of states to keep militia shall not be infringed," he would have just said that.

Sorry, but if you are interpreting a legal document you need to understand law and history. The author of the article obviously understands neither.

I'm sorry, but if you think that Colombia was ever a free state, comparable to any of the US states, you are sorely mistaken. It might be, to a degree, comparable to the old southern states, with less stability, but the nation in Latin America that comes closest to the "free state" was the Brazilian EMPIRE (obviously not a republic, but at least a stable, for it's time rather democratic, and ruled by law, country, and not a lawless oligarchy). And that fell through WITH the institution of the Republic (Republica Vehia, though I'm unsure of the spelling).
Your example is no different than say, Republican China. And no, the Colombian republic is today neither free, nor functional democracy, nor is it under rule of law.

Moreover, while basing your argument on a single example, you are missing the key ingridient of that example: USA, and it's support against the commie threat in it's backyard through training of ruthless paramilitaries that really are no different from the Taliban (with less religion, but more coke).

"While paramilitaries liked to position themselves as a necessary counter to Colombia’s leftist insurgents, ordinary Colombians were often victimized—instead of protected by—the paramilitaries. The armed groups displaced indigenous communities from their land, massacred civilians, and kidnapped political figures. As human rights groups have documented, some paramilitaries even charged “taxes” in local areas and regulated how citizens could dress.

The AUC unified what had been a disparate array of paramilitary groups. Under the leadership of Carlos Castano, the organization expanded in numbers and diversified its revenue streams. It also became increasingly entwined with the drug trade. For instance, some leaders of Los Pepes, a collection of drug traffickers formed in the early 1990s to fight the legendary kingpin Pablo Escobar, later assumed high-level positions in the AUC. Within three years of its formation, the AUC’s numbers had doubled (to roughly eight thousand combatants) and it had made significant inroads into the cocaine trade. It tapped fuel pipelines to sell oil on the black market, extorted payments from multinational corporations such as Chiquita, and expanded into the gambling and construction industries. In 2001, the U.S. government designated the AUC a foreign terrorist organization..."

Does anyone get what author's point is? Even if the you DO manage to push out an invading force, history shows you would kill the patient. If you're now flu-free, but dead, most would argue that still a negative outcome.

It was mentioned that guns are a symbol of American ruggedness and individualism. I agree. *raises glass in cheer of honesty*

Honestly, I think a Newtown could happen every day in America, to no effect. The gun CULTURE you cannot legislate, and THAT I think is the biggest issue that those who wish to restrict gun rights have to face. And it's not like you can just go take their guns - they can (and probably will) shoot you in the face. A lot of Americans will find it exciting, rugged, phallic even, and honestly, just plain fun to use firearms in a legal manner. Since these gun owners are going to vote, fat chance without changing the underlying culture.

In the American Midwest where I come from, I would most definitely say so. Especially since the mere DEBATE has caused gun sales to surge. When you have a populace that is both scared of criminals and of government itself, that's going to be especially prickly.

A lot of it was how this country was formed, and how it views itself. In the collective conscious of America, you still see the history of the Wild West - where there WAS no organized government. You also see the history of Reconstruction when you look at the South - which many see as a bunch of northerners coming in and basically imposing their rules.

Since guns are as ingrained to American culture as fish and chips are to Brits (at least that's what the movies tell us), or pasta and coffee to Italians, you wouldn't go for a gun grab and actually expect it to work.

Legislate all you want. If you change the underlying culture, you wouldn't have to. If you don't, it wouldn't do a damn bit of good.

If I take your meaning Newtown has awoken a futile debate. If so I agree.

I've no problem with gun ownership. Type of gun seems irrelevant as all can inflict pain in the hands of someone who wishes to do so.

The problem, is something I can't quite put my finger on. Having deep roots in the rural west I had, in my youth, spent a lot of time around rifles and shotguns, and very little around hand guns. All my extended family had guns around. My attitudes towards guns was learned from experience and guidance from these people.

I experience a good deal of dissonance when I meet many gun owners in my suburban community. Either the attitudes I encountered around the farm were unique, or they didn't travel well as people moved to suburbs and cities, and as cities moved into rural place via the idiot box.

In any case, I find that attitudes, as I experience them, my metropolis come from a grimmer place that the attitudes I experienced on the farm. I don't know where the change comes from, but I do think it is stoked by Hollywood, the gun lobby, the news, and too many other places that gain a penny from promoting a tool that used to be anonymously "just there" in my earlier life.

Good point. If someone is told that he has a fatal brain tumour, he does not shoot himself in the head to remove the tumour, but to 'get it over with'.
Now, if he survives the attempted suicide, AND successfully shoot the tumour, that belongs to realms of a miracle, and should NEVER be adopted as a SOP for treating brain tumours...

The examples that the author uses to prove his point are poor ones. He showcases countries as examples of regions that are not free, but fails to mention that the governments the militias brought down were not exactly freedom-loving democracies either.

Also, sometimes the people overthrow one government only to put another bad one in power. Yes, it happens. But that is their choice. Not everyone shares the same values that we do. To them, that was the right decision. The point is not what specific government was put in place, but the fact that there was a new government. Take the same circumstances but a different culture, and you'll get a different outcome.

Afghanistan: The people kicked out the Soviets. Yes they put the Taliban in power. No the Taliban is not about freedom or democracy, but that is what the people wanted. Not every culture has the same values we do. Also, the Taliban never controlled all of Afghanistan, only areas predominantly occupied by the same ethnicity. In the north, they did not have control, why? A militia opposed them. Even now, the Taliban has a lot of support in other areas, but not in the north, and not in the Mongolian areas (they also handle their own business, the US generally leaves them alone too).

Iraq: The Kurds have long maintained a greater degree of autonomy than other areas. Also, Iraq is a democracy, even if it isn't a shining bastion of freedom.

Syria: We'll see what happens here, but what started out as a small rebellion that no one saw having any chance of success is now becoming a real threat to the regime.

"If you're now flu-free, but dead, most would argue that still a negative outcome."

Of course it's still a negative outcome - how is an invasion going to manifest a net positive result? And what of the alternative, where the people are either unarmed or poorly armed? A well armed populace results in the least bad outcome among a list of varied bad outcomes.

Beyond that, it is far better to die a free man defending freedom than live in submission to tyranny as a coward.

And such is the problem. The American paranoia about the subject is what prevents progress. That's why we talk about tyranny, despite tyranny not breaking out in the UK or Australia, or ______ (take your pick). Because of that paranoia, progress can't be made. You have to get rid of the paranoia that causes Americans to hold onto their guns for unreasonable purposes.

Protection against invasion? Wouldn't Canada been invaded by now? Or England? Or Australia? It's either paranoia that brings that argument, or cynicism. At least those who are against gun restrictions because guns are fun are being honest.

"You have to get rid of the paranoia that causes Americans to hold onto their guns for unreasonable purposes."

The great thing about having a right is not having to demonstrate a 'reasonable purpose' for exercising it.

"Protection against invasion?"

History teaches us that invasion is, on a long enough time scale, almost inevitable for any nation. Yes, it is highly unlikely that the US will be invaded by anyone any time soon, but who is to say what the world is going to be like 50, 100, 200 years from now?

It's not cynical to acknowledge history, but it is absurd to think that history no longer has relevance simply because we've enjoyed cars, medicine, airplanes and electronics for a handful of decades.

Furthermore it's a logical fallacy to state 'x hasn't happened, therefor, x will never happen'.

For a modern example, look at Switzerland during WWII. Germany on one side, Italy on the other, and occupied France completing the circle. Yet the Nazis didn't even *try* to invade Switzerland precisely because the Swiss were and are a well armed people. The civilian nature of their militia allowed the entire country to be mobilized in just three days.

You're also not considering natural and man made disasters, which are far more likely to occur than outright invasion. Again, history teaches us that such things are almost inevitable. When such things occur, chaos is likely to ensue, and you may actually find very legitimate use for 30 round magazines and high powered semi-automatics.

I do not think you understand how fragile our way of living actually is. If you stop the fuel, you stop the trucks. If you stop the trucks, you stop the food. If you stop the food, people are going to lose their shit. If a city becomes cut off from the larger infrastructure for a week, almost all of the onsite food will be gone or hoarded, and hungry people are not polite people.

M.S. wrote… “But I also have no problem arguing that the damn thing (second amendment) ought to be repealed. It has nothing to do with any important human freedoms, and any of the founders who thought it did were wrong.”

I agree with this statement – I’m for greater control of access to guns; however now regarding the comments section of “Democracy in America”, the following has been established:

• The first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution (Bill of Rights), as well as all other amendments to the Constitution are now all up for consideration for repeal.

• Each of us have our own understanding of what is an “important human freedom”; and these understandings are not mutually shared by all and are not defendable using the U.S Constitution or any of its amendments.

• This is all because it is now established in the comments section of “Democracy in America”, that if the founders disagree with us regarding our own individual understanding of an “important human freedom”, they are not infallible – they are simply wrong.

Since we can easily make laws restricting law-abiding citizens access to firearms, how do you propose we go about restricting criminals access to firearms?

Perhaps we could assemble some sort of organization whose duty it is to investigate criminal activity and confiscate illegally obtained weapons. Good lord, why aren't we doing this already? It seems like a brilliant idea. /sarcasm

I also find it ironic that a British newspaper would send this message. Also, the question of balancing the prowess of the British Army against personally owned firearms is interesting. Are there any personal memoirs of British officers of the time stating the pointlessness of confiscating the colonists firearms? I think the Minutemen were pretty effective, man for man.

Does possession of personal firearms guarantee freedom from tyranny? I don't know, it's pretty hard to tell. Does freedom of the press guarantee freedom from tyranny? Does a separate legislature, executive, and judicial branch do this? States' rights? Due process? It's a complex system designed to make life complicated for tyrants.

1. the economist is pretty anglo-american at this point. MS may even be american himself; he's certainly lived here a while.

2. yes, confiscating citizens' muskets would be pretty important when your army has the same small arms (plus single shot cannons, but not, say, drones, smart bombs, and active denial systems.) then it becomes less relevant whether or not citizens have AR-15s.

3. your second paragraph is entirely ignorant (perhaps willfully so) of social science research that has looked at the correlations of high scores on democratic indices and these factors. and of all of them, gun rights is the least associated. as MS pointed out in his last piece on the subject, when do you think was the last time a legislator in a free country considered whether or not to vote for a bill based on whether she'd be shot rather than reelected?

1. The Economist is British newspaper/magazine/blog. Yes, I am willfully informed that there are Americans in it. Bagehot et al, however, are British ("et al" means "and others").
2. The Viet Nam war does not support your point.
3. Probably about the same time a tyrant cared about being overridden in congress or declared unconstitutional by a supreme court or vilified in the press. Hitler ruled via the Gestapo, not the Wehrmacht.
Pardon my grammar, but isn't the operative word in "least associated" still "associated"?

there is, in fact, no statistically significant correlation, so i misspoke. check MS's article from summer entitled "A Stinger for Antontin"

2. The vietcong, and the vietminh more importantly, did not get their weapons from a culture of private gun ownership. I'm not quite sure, but I'd imagine it was from troops defecting from the French colonial army, or arms shipments from the Soviets or Chinese (or a combination of all three). Furthermore, if your point is that just rifles are sufficient for a determined enemy to defeat a modern army, here's the thing: the cost of an unnecessary war was made too high leading to political pressure for withdrawal, so yes, it can impose a cost (but a much greater cost on the civilian population enduring the carpet bombing.) But were a tyrannical regime with state of the art military technology to fight a war of existential importance on its own territory, then without outside support, a bunch of (probably well-meaning) dudes who fantasize about starring in a modern Red Dawn aren't gonna be much of an issue.

3. The point of this strain of argument is that if you look at the evidence, it is the strength of political institutions and the ideals underlaying them that prevents tyranny. Granted, as Nassim Taleb would point out, one might have been caught saying that in the Weimar Republic (but i doubt with the same conviction as one could say here; democracy had no roots in Germany), but the point still comes down to this: what policymaker in an industrialized country is concerned with the militiamans' violent veto? None! Give me an example. I don't think your point is entirely ridiculous; its rooted in a prudent conservative theoretical framework in a sense. But it's very outlandish by the standards of other OECD countries and seems to be based more in fantasy that historical evidence.

The 2nd Amendment is a right not a privilege. The right to own military weapons was not inhibited until the National Gun Act of 1934.BATF did not know what to do with all their agents after Prohibition was repealed, so they created a "stamp act" and reclassified a list of weapons to tax. This law was laughed out of every court until the Feds appealled it to the U.S.Supreme Court. Neither the defendents{they could not be located} or their lawyer went before the Court, so by default the Feds finally won.
The War of Secession was almost won by States' Militas. In today's world,an EMP burst over the continental U.S. would make local militas the sole guarrantaur of law and order.

there's something to be said for that argument, going back to the early foundations of british liberalism with Hobbes and Locke, who talked about natural rights (in different ways), but modern weapons allow one person to kill so many others so quickly that its quite simply not the same thing.

Today, allowing someone to have an assault rifle is more of an infringement upon the rights of others to their safety than a guarantor of an individual's rights.

What the anti-gun people call an assault weapon is merely a semi-automatic weapon that looks more like a military weapon than a hunting rifle. All hunting rifles, with the exception of the single-shot rifles that fathers might give to their pre-teen sons, are semi-automatics; they fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled.

When uninformed people hear "assault weapon", they think "automatic rifle", a machine gun which has been highly regulated since the 1930s.

i know that, my dude, I was a teenage boy playing Rainbow 6 and whatnot not too long ago.

still, two things:

1. For my info (i've tried to figure this out for a while), what kind of a semi-auto rifle is there other than a semi version of an assault rifle? i imagine they exist (like a modern version of a winchester repeater or an M1-garand or something? a civilian m-14 would kinda fit the bill) but i don't know what they are. And I imagine that they have mags that are at most 5-10 rounds? I'd appreciate an example.

2. Following up on that, what difference does the trigger grouping really make in a situation of a massacre of unarmed targets? some, yes, but automatic is mostly useful for suppressing fire in combat. once you have 30 rounds that can be fired rapidly, you can do more or less the same damage. look at the port arthur massacre that got australia to get serious about their gun laws: it was a semi-auto ar-15.

3. what self-defense situation, realistically, do you actually need an AR-15 rather than a pistol or a shotgun? That dude on the Piers Morgan show brought up the LA Riots Koreatown example. That seems conceivable. But just as one might make the argument not to legislate towards statistically insignificant things like mass shootings, shouldn't the same apply to extremely abnormal riotous situations? Unless your a survivalist, I think the answer is clear.

The other conceivable answer is an attacker with an AR-15, but that kinda defeats the point of the argument.

1. There are semi-auto hunting rifles. The M1, while it technically was a military weapon, does not fit the requirements of an "assault weapon". Also, the Mini-14 comes to mind.
Note that "assault rifle" is not the same thing. An assault rifle is a military term referring to rifles of intermediate caliber that are capable of automatic or burst fire. Those are already heavily regulated. I think there have been only 2 crimes involving legally-owned automatic weapons since the passing of the NFA. The assault weapon ban has nothing at all to do with assault rifles.
2. That's kind of the point. Assault weapon bans target features like pistol grips or folding stocks, rather than the function of the weapon. How does a pistol grip really make a weapon more dangerous? Any semi-automatic weapon will do the trick. I'm not even talking rifles either. In many cases, you can do just as much (or more) with a handgun or a pump-action shotgun.
3. This one I will break down into multiple points.
a. Why would an attacker need an AR-15 rather than a pistol, shotgun, or hunting rifle? That argument works both ways.
b. There are other uses besides defense, like sporting and hunting.
c. Perhaps you have a large area of land to cover. Again, a hunting rifle could work, but this provides another option, also see item e.
d. Some people are just comfortable with them, especially if they do or have served in the military and have used similar weapons. The best gun is one that you know how to use and are comfortable using.
e. I know someone that uses a civilian carbine similar in style to the M4. The reason is that it is light, short, and easy to maneuver, all things important when inside his home. More importantly, he is former law enforcement and showed me a presentation put together by the FBI. They conducted a study on different caliber bullets and their use by law enforcement. The ideal round identified was the .223. It was identified as being powerful enough to be useful against someone and penetrate light cover, but would not likely to overpenetrate (meaning either go through the target or a wall and hit someone else). .223 is a common caliber for this style of weapon. And it is not terribly expensive, which makes it easy to practice.
f. There are a lot of accessories already produced for this style of weapon which makes it easy to customize the weapon in a manner that best suits your needs.
g. Whether or not the attacker has an AR-15 or similar weapon is actually not even on my list of things to consider when choosing a home defense weapon. It really doesn't matter. Besides, those are used in a tiny fraction of crimes.

Sean Sandeen seems to have answered your questions, at least as well as I could.

I saw an interesting article today, about FBI crime statistics. It seems that year after year, far more Americans are murdered with clubs and hammers than are murdered with rifles. For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. see http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-...

And murders by knife outnumbered murders by rifle by more than a 5-1 margin.

So, wouldn't it make at least as much sense to regulate knives, clubs, and hammers?

But, twice as many murders were committed by striking with fists, feet, etc., as with rifles.

yo, lemme start by saying thank you for that comment. that was extremely informative and a model for how this national discourse aughta be handled between people with strong convictions either way.

a couple things though (and i don't expect us to end up agreeing entirely):

1. the fundamental point that I'm trying to make is that its fundamentally about magazine size. that's seems to be the common sense thing (under the rubric of gun control) to limit if you want to lessen the casualties of mass shootings*. and yes, there are trade offs that would affect legal gun owners that would have to weighed, though again (and maybe this is partly from my perspective as a New Yorker happy to be far away from guns, where one's familiarity with a weapon just wouldn't occur to me), i think that the situations in which that would truly matter in a self defense situation are minimal. that's kind of what I was asking about with the semi-auto hunting rifle thing, because it seems to me that the difference is indeed not about pistol grips and whatnot but about mag size (i looked it up and it seems the mini-14 can take 30 rnd mags or more, but i suppose those could be banned)

2. Some countries have systems where rifles are kept at ranges for sport. i totally see why that might make less sense in America and again, it's easy for me to suggest that because it would effect me. similarly, i doubt that any rancher or hunter really needs more than a 10 rnd mag. yes, it might be a little inconvenient, but not the end of the world.

again, thanks, man.

* it's also debatable if thats the more pressing issue as opposed to our astronomical regular gun crime rates vis-à-vis the rest of the world and what policy would help there, but that's another conversation.

yo, lemme start by saying thank you for that comment. that was extremely informative and a model for how this national discourse aughta be handled between people with strong convictions either way.
a couple things though (and i don't expect us to end up agreeing entirely):
1. the fundamental point that I'm trying to make is that its ultimately about magazine capacity. that's seems to be the common sense thing (under the rubric of gun control) to limit if you want to lessen the casualties of mass shootings*. and yes, there are trade offs that would affect legal gun owners that would have to weighed, though again (and maybe this is partly from my perspective as a New Yorker happy to be far away from guns, thus aspects such as one's familiarity with a weapon just wouldn't occur to me), i think that the situations in which that would truly matter in a self defense situation are minimal. that's kind of what I was asking about with the semi-auto hunting rifle thing, because it seems to me that the difference is indeed not about pistol grips and whatnot but about mag size (i looked it up and it seems the mini-14 can take 30 rnd mags or more, but i suppose those could be banned)
2. Some countries have systems where rifles are kept at ranges for sport. i totally see why that might make less sense in America and again, it's easy for me to suggest that because it would effect me. similarly, i doubt that any rancher or hunter really needs more than a 10 rnd mag. yes, it might be a little inconvenient, but not the end of the world.
again, thanks, man.
* it's also debatable if thats the more pressing issue as opposed to our astronomical regular gun crime rates vis-à-vis the rest of the world and what policy would help there, but that's another conversation.

No problem, I'm always willing to share information with someone willing to listen.

I apologize, but this is going to be another fairly long one.

1. You are correct that the mini-14 can accept a 30-round magazine and you are correct that magazine capacity is completely divorced from the issue of the weapon itself (since you can have one without the other and therefore could ban one and not the other). I will agree that the number of rounds fired is more important than the rifle itself. However, I'm not certain that limiting magazine size will be terribly effective. Prepare for more sub-bullets here.

a. Even a relatively new shooter can do a magazine change in about 3 seconds or less. A practiced shooter takes about half a second. All you have to do is carry more 10-round magazines and reload more often, and in the end you'll still have the same bullet capacity.

b. A common argument is that you can attack the shooter while he is reloading. Again, see the time it takes to reload (if you don't believe me feel free to youtube some videos of guys doing mag changes at competitions). In the time it takes for the human brain to perceive that the shooter is out of ammo, process that information, decide on a course of action, begin that action, and then actually close the distance between himself and the shooter (ok if he's right in front of the shooter he has a chance), chances are the shooter has reloaded. And all of that is assuming he doesn't have a backup weapon, which in many cases they do (the Aurora shooter's weapon jammed but he had multiple secondary weapons).

c. People can't agree on where the line is between reasonable and not. People say anything above 10 rounds is high capacity. I disagree. Many pistols have magazines that have more than 10 rounds. I don't classify them as high capacity because they are not extended magazines that hold extra rounds or anything like that, but it is standard for a pistol magazine to run the length of the pistol grip, and most of the time the number of rounds that fit into that size happen to exceed 10. These aren't special magazines, they are just standard.

d. I would encourage these shooters to use high capacity magazines. I hope they go for the largest most ridiculous ones they can find. Why? Because they are less reliable. Higher capacity mags are more likely to jam, as the Aurora shooter discovered.

e. I have a slight personal stake in this as I am trying to buy some 30 round magazines myself but they are sold out. I'm in the Army and will be deploying overseas. When my life is on the line, I want a magazine I can rely on. The ones the Army issues are terrible. I have had frequent jams and misfeeds with them. Since it's my life on the line over there, I want something reliable. I've had my own mags in the past but over time I've given them to other soldiers or had them stolen. Since I am making the purchase and not my organization, I am buying these as a private citizen. I get no special exemption if these get banned because they will be my personal property, even if they are for work. Thus, a ban on these magazines would put me at the mercy of Uncle Sam, which buys from the lowest bidder and then reuses them long past their useful lifespan.

2. Ok this one will be shorter. Not all rifles are for sport. Some are for self defense or hunting. It might not make sense to keep a defense weapon at a range. It also limits you to the hours of that range, and it essentially serves as an additional forced tax on gunowners. Also, for some people that live out in the middle of nowhere, far from any such range that might store them, it could be completely impractical. It also doesn't solve the problem of other firearms that could be equally effective for use in a mass shooting (I don't know why some people think you can't kill a bunch of people with a handgun or shotgun), unless you require that ALL firearms be stored at ranges, which I really have a problem with for pretty much all the same reasons outlined above, especially because shotguns and handguns are even more likely to be owned for personal/home defense.

Just so it doesn't seem like I'm shooting down everyone else's ideas, I don't think it's a hopeless situation. A few simple things like requiring background checks for private firearm sales would go a long way. Also, better access to mental health care and better tracking of mentally ill individuals.

I do a lot of work with bombings and terrorism. One thing I've noticed about the US is we like to go after the weapon. We focus on technology. The problem is that with both guns and explosives, it's very widespread and in some cases very hard to track. Other countries like Israel target the criminal. Instead of looking for a weapon, they look for indicators that a person will use a weapon. Of course that is an overly simplistic view, we do look for some behavioral indicators and they of course do still scan for guns and bombs, but I'm sure you get my meaning.

To review the many absurdist comments appended here below, there are many people who believe that America's insistence on maintaining a private right of gun ownership is a necessary consequence of the 2nd Amendment, that repealing and replacing the 2nd Amendment to institute a fully modern policy would somehow be sacrosanct, irreligious and unAmerican, that doing anything to change the 2nd Amendment would amount to depriving every individual of the opportunity of defending life, liberty and property, and that, in general, the more guns the merrier!

All of these counterarguments are specious, however, and many of them amount to rank claptrap. Here's why.

The 2nd Amendment merely sets forth a public policy regarding the rights of the States to maintain a militia during peacetime and, so, by implication, the right of any State's citizens to arm themselves in view of defending the State. In addition, according to the most recent decisions of SCOTUS, the 2nd Amendment implies a personal constitutional right to own and bear arms for one's own personal purposes (namely, self-defense), rather than the defense of the State.

No one doubts that the States have and should continue to have the right to maintain their own statewide militias. To the extent that the States find it useful to permit their militiamen to maintain their arms at home, no one disagrees with this. Why not replace the 2nd Amendment with language which makes these rights as to the States and their militiamen explicit and clear?

No one doubts, also, that every person has and should continue to have the right to defend himself, his liberty and his property. Intelligent observers know that this right inheres in the US Constitution, in our civil law and jurisprudence, and is merely self-evident. It is NOT secured to us by the 2nd Amendment, as such, but transcends that constitutional provision.

The question comes, then, by what means may a person defend himself?? By ANY means? By any REASONABLE means? By use of single-shot handguns? Rifles? Automatic weapons? Nuclear weapons? Where and how do we draw the line?

The 2nd Amendment offers us no clear guidance on this, first and foremost because the definition and limits of the 18th century term “arms” are hotly debated and wholly unclear. Moreover, the relationship of any 2nd Amendment right to the defense of one’s person as opposed to the defense of the State, until recently, had always been deemed much more limited than at present. Finally, while it may have been entirely reasonable in the late 18th century to flood the countryside with private muskets and rifles, the same cannot rightly be said about modern-day America. Rather, what is very clear is that granting every citizen the right to own weapons, including especially firearms, as a matter of constitutional right AS OPPOSED TO A MERITED AND REGULATED PRIVILEGE causes far more harm, tragedy and loss of life and property than it’s worth.

Repealing and replacing the 2nd Amendment is absolutely necessary, NOT because we wish to extinguish the right of the States to a militia or the right of self-defense, but because we wish to eliminate the tremendous excess of firearms and other dangerous weapons circulating in America today, thereby to restrain criminals and crazies from easily gaining access to weapons (e.g., Mr. Lanza) and to dissuade those who are about to run amok (e.g., mad housewives and jealous husbands) from laying hand on weapon in hopes of solving their “problem”.

The difference in the incidence of violent crime in Britain and America is compelling, and by an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. We Americans are absolute fools, if we don’t give up our cartoonish obsession with popping pistols and believing that we, too, can easily be James Bond.

We already have laws to "restrain criminals & crazies from easily gaining access"; Mr. Lanza got the guns because his mother failed to buy & properly lock a gunsafe; how would your prescription have made any difference whatsoever??

"...A MERITED AND REGULATED PRIVILEGE" (your caps) is so very easily NOT given to one's political enemies. That's why the right to bear arms must remain a right, not a privilege. If you don't like the way it is, why not move to England?

How exactly would a privilege be "so very easily NOT given to one's political enemies"? Wouldn't you agree that the Equal Protection Clause would prevent whatever patronage-gun system you're worried about?

Preazy Obama wants gun control and immigration now, then the debt ceiling in six weeks. Like a little parade with some candy and a clown. I refuse to get excited about gun control, but it's a good opportunity to push back on liberals and rational thought.

Driving a car is a merited and regulated privilege and automobile accidents kill as many or more people in the U.S. every year. The vast majority of those accidents are the result of stupid and/or negligent behavior on the part of drivers.

Making something a merited and regulated privilege does not cause idiots to stop doing stupid and reckless things and it does not stop criminals from committing crimes.

As far as your comment about self-defense, no, it is not a self-evident right. There are people in this country who actually believe that calling 911 is the only justified form of defense. Those same people would ban all ownership of any weapons if given the opportunity.

"The question comes, then, by what means may a person defend himself??"

There is a saying: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

Let me stop you here and say that I am 100 percent with you on there needing to be some restrictions on what kind of weapons the average Joe should have access to.

I don't need an M-60 just because the gangs are carrying AK-47s and M-16s, even if they are carrying full-auto capable ones (which many can easily get).

However, a semi-automatic M1A (M-14) or AR-15 with the ability to hold more than 10 rounds and the ability to rapidly reload will give a well-trained and intelligent individual the ability to get themselves out of almost any trouble, short of being surrounded.

Notice that I didn't say that they could or should take on all of the bad guys and kill them, a la Chuck Norris, I said get them out of trouble - get the bad guy's heads down long enough to escape or find a safe place to hole up until help arrives or better yet, convince the bad guys to leave.

So, there's a lot of room to work with, however, registration, bans and repealing or modifying the Second Amendment are not practical or necessary and will not be tolerated.

I'm with on there being a need for more training, not only will it make the average gun owner safer, it will make them a more effective deterrent.

However, you then run into the practical problem of paying for it. You can make the argument that if somebody can't afford to stay regularly train with their gun, then they shouldn't be allowed to own one because it makes them more of a threat.

But the same argument can be made about car owners and parents...people who can't afford to maintain their vehicles are a hazard to other drivers and poorly maintained cars are all over the place.

Parents who can't afford to feed, cloth and raise their kids properly create a future burden for and threat to society and I see those kids all over the place.

So, are you going to force the same training/maintenance requirements on everybody else?

First let me state my position....I came to the USA an immigrant, I am a citizen and am very proud of my country. I am not a radical, I believe in everything that our constitution stands for. I am concerned about the direction our country is moving. We are moving away from the very character that made the USA unique and admired by the rest of the world. Most of this is because of the inability of our government to govern by consent. The proliferation of executive orders, Czars and super committees that have been created over the last few administrations are alarming.

The problem with your argument and many on the anti 2nd Amendment argument is that "Who defines reasonable?" The congress of the United States can't even agree on spending, immigration or any host of matters. They certainly have an inability to work together in any reasonable fashion.

As for SCOTUS - I would not trust the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsberg deciding what is reasonable- here is a Justice who has on many occasions has spoken out about the worthlessness of the very constitution she has sworn to uphold. She actually stated on a PBS program that the Egyptians should not look to the US constitution but rather that of South Africa and other more progressive countries.

I have spent a lot of time in South Africa, the last time I was there in 2010, I was held at gunpoint. The corruption at all levels in South Africa is astonishing.

What does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment you may ask....Well everything. At the risk of being branded a gun nut, redneck, NRA zealot....are you aware that at the last meeting of the UN conference on Arms Trade Treaty our President allowed the English delegate to speak on behalf of the US with regards to private/civilian firearms ownership at a early November 2012 meeting reconvened within 2 days of the US Election. While this treaty does deal with the proliferation of weapons world wide there are specific passages that strike down civilian ownership of guns. What the 2nd Amendment has to do with the proliferation of weapons in the 3rd world is beyond me.

Should Senator Feinstien (D-CA) decide. She is currently leading the charge. This is a person who believes in banning all civilian firearms ownership, she is on record as saying so on many occasions. Oh, by the way, she is exempt because she needs to have a concealed carry permit ( she is also an Honorary Air Marshal) so she can carry on an airline.... So only the political elite get to own a gun.

Should the NRA define the rights? well that would turn a few heads.

In China they just drive a car into a school bus shelter and kill more kids every year than any other supposedly civilized nation.

Chicago, with the strictest gun control laws in the country has had 466 school age kids killed through 12/1/12.

So we have eliminated the government, SCOTUS, Senators the NRA etc.....so who decides what is reasonable?

After the 2nd amendment lets revisit what else is next, the 1st, the 10th or any others that are an inconvenience to prevent our FEDERAL GOVT. from controlling us from that day that we are born to the day we die. If anyone believes that you can trust a politician to decide on what's reasonable, then look no further than the current US Congress, they are a bunch of self serving asses that cannot see further than their own wallet, that goes for all 536 of them, House, Senate and President.

We have enough trouble there without deflecting issues to gun control or any other convenient subject to deflect the fact that they are not doing their jobs. And NO...I am not a radical, I love this country, but we seem to have much bigger issues to deal with than the issue of gun control...this is a distraction.

Personally I will take my chances on keeping the constitution the way it is. If you don't like it there are many other countries to go and live in....BTW, seems that there are not many with millions of people trying to get into them. Seems that the good old USA has had that distinction since its founding. We are not perfect, we are a work in progress, that's what makes us unique. So if you don't like what we have here go live in Zimbabwe as I did for many years....you may then have a different point of view.

First let me state my position....I came to the USA an immigrant, I am a citizen and am very proud of my country. I am not a radical, I believe in everything that our constitution stands for. I am concerned about the direction our country is moving. We are moving away from the very character that made the USA unique and admired by the rest of the world. Most of this is because of the inability of our government to govern by consent. The proliferation of executive orders, Czars and super committees that have been created over the last few administrations are alarming.

The problem with your argument and many on the anti 2nd Amendment argument is that "Who defines reasonable?" The congress of the United States can't even agree on spending, immigration or any host of matters. They certainly have an inability to work together in any reasonable fashion.

As for SCOTUS - I would not trust the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsberg deciding what is reasonable- here is a Justice who has on many occasions has spoken out about the worthlessness of the very constitution she has sworn to uphold. She actually stated on a PBS program that the Egyptians should not look to the US constitution but rather that of South Africa and other more progressive countries.

I have spent a lot of time in South Africa, the last time I was there in 2010, I was held at gunpoint. The corruption at all levels in South Africa is astonishing.

What does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment you may ask....Well everything. At the risk of being branded a gun nut, redneck, NRA zealot....are you aware that at the last meeting of the UN conference on Arms Trade Treaty our President allowed the English delegate to speak on behalf of the US with regards to private/civilian firearms ownership at a early November 2012 meeting reconvened within 2 days of the US Election. While this treaty does deal with the proliferation of weapons world wide there are specific passages that strike down civilian ownership of guns. What the 2nd Amendment has to do with the proliferation of weapons in the 3rd world is beyond me.

Should Senator Feinstien (D-CA) decide. She is currently leading the charge. This is a person who believes in banning all civilian firearms ownership, she is on record as saying so on many occasions. Oh, by the way, she is exempt because she needs to have a concealed carry permit ( she is also an Honorary Air Marshal) so she can carry on an airline.... So only the political elite get to own a gun.

Should the NRA define the rights? well that would turn a few heads.

In China they just drive a car into a school bus shelter and kill more kids every year than any other supposedly civilized nation.

Chicago, with the strictest gun control laws in the country has had 466 school age kids killed through 12/1/12.

So we have eliminated the government, SCOTUS, Senators the NRA etc.....so who decides what is reasonable?

After the 2nd amendment lets revisit what else is next, the 1st, the 10th or any others that are an inconvenience to prevent our FEDERAL GOVT. from controlling us from that day that we are born to the day we die. If anyone believes that you can trust a politician to decide on what's reasonable, then look no further than the current US Congress, they are a bunch of self serving asses that cannot see further than their own wallet, that goes for all 536 of them, House, Senate and President.

We have enough trouble there without deflecting issues to gun control or any other convenient subject to deflect the fact that they are not doing their jobs. And NO...I am not a radical, I love this country, but we seem to have much bigger issues to deal with than the issue of gun control...this is a distraction.

Personally I will take my chances on keeping the constitution the way it is. If you don't like it there are many other countries to go and live in....BTW, seems that there are not many with millions of people trying to get into them. Seems that the good old USA has had that distinction since its founding. We are not perfect, we are a work in progress, that's what makes us unique. So if you don't like what we have here go live in Zimbabwe as I did for many years....you may then have a different point of view.

First let me state my position....I came to the USA an immigrant, I am a citizen and am very proud of my country. I am not a radical, I believe in everything that our constitution stands for. I am concerned about the direction our country is moving. We are moving away from the very character that made the USA unique and admired by the rest of the world. Most of this is because of the inability of our government to govern by consent. The proliferation of executive orders, Czars and super committees that have been created over the last few administrations are alarming.

The problem with your argument and many on the anti 2nd Amendment argument is that "Who defines reasonable?" The congress of the United States can't even agree on spending, immigration or any host of matters. They certainly have an inability to work together in any reasonable fashion.

As for SCOTUS - I would not trust the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsberg deciding what is reasonable- here is a Justice who has on many occasions has spoken out about the worthlessness of the very constitution she has sworn to uphold. She actually stated on a PBS program that the Egyptians should not look to the US constitution but rather that of South Africa and other more progressive countries.

I have spent a lot of time in South Africa, the last time I was there in 2010, I was held at gunpoint. The corruption at all levels in South Africa is astonishing.

What does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment you may ask....Well everything. At the risk of being branded a gun nut, redneck, NRA zealot....are you aware that at the last meeting of the UN conference on Arms Trade Treaty our President allowed the English delegate to speak on behalf of the US with regards to private/civilian firearms ownership at a early November 2012 meeting reconvened within 2 days of the US Election. While this treaty does deal with the proliferation of weapons world wide there are specific passages that strike down civilian ownership of guns. What the 2nd Amendment has to do with the proliferation of weapons in the 3rd world is beyond me.

Should Senator Feinstien (D-CA) decide. She is currently leading the charge. This is a person who believes in banning all civilian firearms ownership, she is on record as saying so on many occasions. Oh, by the way, she is exempt because she needs to have a concealed carry permit ( she is also an Honorary Air Marshal) so she can carry on an airline.... So only the political elite get to own a gun.

Should the NRA define the rights? well that would turn a few heads.

In China they just drive a car into a school bus shelter and kill more kids every year than any other supposedly civilized nation.

Chicago, with the strictest gun control laws in the country has had 466 school age kids killed through 12/1/12.

So we have eliminated the government, SCOTUS, Senators the NRA etc.....so who decides what is reasonable?

After the 2nd amendment lets revisit what else is next, the 1st, the 10th or any others that are an inconvenience to prevent our FEDERAL GOVT. from controlling us from that day that we are born to the day we die. If anyone believes that you can trust a politician to decide on what's reasonable, then look no further than the current US Congress, they are a bunch of self serving people that cannot see further than their own wallet, that goes for all 536 of them, House, Senate and President.

We have enough trouble there without deflecting issues to gun control or any other convenient subject to deflect the fact that they are not doing their jobs. And NO...I am not a radical, I love this country, but we seem to have much bigger issues to deal with than the issue of gun control...this is a distraction.

Personally I will take my chances on keeping the constitution the way it is. If you don't like it there are many other countries to go and live in....BTW, seems that there are not many with millions of people trying to get into them. Seems that the good old USA has had that distinction since its founding. We are not perfect, we are a work in progress, that's what makes us unique. So if you don't like what we have here go live in Zimbabwe as I did for many years....you may then have a different point of view.

Are the mentally ill afforded equal protection under the 14th amendment? If they are a favored minority they might, but not if they are the despised white male. My concern is that entire classes of people (those who don't trust big government and choose to keep their assault rifles or self-defense weapons) will be effectively declared mentally ill. Once that is established, all bets are off.

If you want an example of the non-protection of the 14th amendment, consider the person in my field (IT) who lets slip that gays & lesbians are perverted sinners in need of redemption, and not extra-special types who deserve special-special everything. That comment can get you fired... not obviously, of course, but eventually (or quickly) once some other "sufficient" reason can be found.

BTW, I am a sinner in need myself, and I have no interest in glorifying guns or persecuting homosexuals. I just want the truth in the public square...

Regarding the debate on the gun control issue, like many other issues; it is very very interesting to examine the relative investment each side appears to exhibit regarding the issue.

A heavy investment in either side of an issue tends towards a very passionate approach. A minimal investment in either side of an issue tends towards a much less passionate, maybe pragmatic, approach. What appears to be lacking is a stoic approach.

Quite the opposite. The gun banners have nothing in this fight. Most shootings are drug/gang related or suicides. You are literally more likely to be struck by lightening than killed by an active shooter. You are way more likely to be killed by a drunk driver- and we see how that ban worked so well..

Gun banning is simple for these people because they don't own guns, most of their friends don't own guns and they havea couple of people between the streets and their 'medical MJ'. It has no cost and no pain for them.

The difference between gun grabbers and free people is like the differnce between a chicken and a pig when it comes to breakfast. The Chicken is involved, but not even present- and the pig, well the pig is all in when it comes to breakfast.

What exactly is the government tyranny that the US gun rights crowd is so concerned about? My guess is that most of these folks already think that the US is better than every other country, so exactly what is the tyranny that we need to protect ourselves from?

This writer is obviously willfully ignorant of history or just a liar. Is he really trying to suggest that irregular forces have no effect?!? Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ireland, Warsaw Ghetto etc say "Hello!!!"

The argument briefly summed up is: "Since you cannot have a 100% effectiveness against professional forces, one ought to concede everything to the state and to the criminal class." What a horrid argument. It's not about a head to head, form a line and fight the US Army type battle. It's about having a hedge vs tyranny. Additionally, it's a constant reminder that powers are delegated to the government from a voluntary consent of the governed. Sad, how quickly principles and philosophy are forgotten.

This and the constant ramrodding of the idea that unlimited illegal immigration is proper is making me rethink my opinion of the quality of The Economist's editorials. The writer ought to follow his own advice and leave the exercising of fundamental rights (1st in this case) to the professionals.

The above commenter is obviously wilfully ignorant of what the article he or she is ostensibly responding to actually says. That militas are unlikely to be effective against modern armies is part of his argument for why Williamson's position is ridiculous, but it plays no role in supporting his own position, which is better summarized by these two quotes from the last few sentences:

"history has demonstrated that militias are not necessary but actively pernicious to the security of a free state"

"[The Second Amendment] has nothing to do with any important human freedoms, and any of the founders who thought it did were wrong."

It's not the militia-the IRA--that won the freedom of Ireland. It was the Irish Republic through a combination of resistance and negotiation. Get your facts straight. As to Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc., doesn't that prove the author's point? These are not countries noted for their freedoms but rather their warlords, dictators and corruption.

If you think a bunch of lunatics with hunting rifles are any sort of challenge to the US Army, then that should be my line. That's not only false but laughable, and the idea that the possibility is the only thing that prevents the US from being a dictatorship is even stupider. These things are not only false, but *crazy*. I don't understand how it's possible to claim them with a straight face.

I have not kept a straight face. It's a nice straw argument, that private gun ownership is preventing a dictatorship. Silly.

Lunatics with hunting rifles? Perjoratives and hyperbole. Uncle Sam is weak and Cornhuskers and Longhorns have guns. Probably ex-military or tradesmen. The rest could get by without taking the ASVAB. Never heard of the 90 day wonder? They were a wonder and they were trained before they ever had to ship out.

Guns are a symbol for rugged individualism. American individualism=American democracy, rights. Let's keep the individualism, the guns. The 2nd Amendment is hurting nothing.

The author failed to mention that the founders, having read their Edward Gibbon, hated standing armies. Jefferson thought a standing army was the worst possible situation. I think our military is little protection for me, little threat to anyone.

I reread your post. "Laughable," "stupider," and "crazy." And you really say nothing. No analysis of guns in social science, political science, or culture. No contribution on the formal and normative regulation of guns and violence.

Illinois was the last holdout on concealed carry. The 7th Circuit gave them a brief window to adopt a concealed carry law, after explaining that since 49 other states found that concealed carry is no menace, the rationale of the Illinois law (Jeff Heikkinen's rationale) is incredible.

1. The Viet Cong didn't win the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese Army did. That is why Vietnam has a strong government. It is, however, an authoritarian single-party state, not a "free" one. Since winning the war, the Vietnamese communists have ruthlessly eliminated the popular militias of highland ethnic minorities, and it is now illegal to own firearms in Vietnam, apart from hunting guns.
2. Afghanistan has wavered between totalitarian theocracy and corrupt warlordism under the militias (Taliban, Northern Alliance, Hekmatyar etc.) that have contended for power there for the past 20 years.
3. Iraq's militias (Mahdi Army etc.) engage in terrorism and civil war. They have destroyed any chance Iraq might have had to become a peaceful, unified democracy over the past decade.
4. Ireland staged an anti-colonial revolution. Anti-colonial revolutions do sometimes lead to free states. Which US states or territories do you think are subjugated colonies? Do you think they need arms in order to be able to secede? When Puerto Rican or Samoan freedom fighters start shooting US Marines, which side will you back?
5. The Warsaw Ghetto: which side won that one again?

1. The Viet Cong didn't win the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese Army did. That is why Vietnam has a strong government. It is, however, an authoritarian single-party state, not a "free" one. Since winning the war, the Vietnamese communists have ruthlessly eliminated the popular militias of highland ethnic minorities, and it is now illegal to own firearms in Vietnam, apart from hunting guns.
2. Afghanistan has wavered between totalitarian theocracy and corrupt warlordism under the militias (Taliban, Northern Alliance, Hekmatyar etc.) that have contended for power there for the past 20 years.
3. Iraq's militias (Mahdi Army etc.) engage in terrorism and civil war. They have destroyed any chance Iraq might have had to become a peaceful, unified democracy over the past decade.
4. Ireland staged an anti-colonial revolution. Anti-colonial revolutions do sometimes lead to free states. Which US states or territories do you think are subjugated colonies? Do you think they need arms in order to be able to secede? When Puerto Rican or Samoan freedom fighters start shooting US Marines, which side will you back?
5. The Warsaw Ghetto: which side won that one again?

It's not about winning per se. It's about inflicting an additional cost on an army. Plus the point you were making was multi-part:

1. All a militia or irregular forces do is make an army mad.
2. They are harmful to freedom.

My point and others who have pointed out the same thing is that irregular forces throughout history have inflicted significant costs on "real" armies. Additionally, the fact that irregular forces have been useful impacts the future war planning of armies and the political will of even the super power. Refer to Somalia.

Back to the Warsaw Ghetto.. you honestly think that having the option of inflicting some losses on the Nazis is worse then just meekly hopping into the ovens? You think that the irregular partisans of occupied countries such as parts of the USSR and France accomplished nothing? Just because they did not do some arbitrary threshold of damage to the Germans do not mean they had 0 value.

Now, with regards to freedom. You can, and rightfully so, point out instances where the presence of armed militia make it harder to govern a state efficiently: for good or for ill. We don't know what would have been the result without the presence of these militia and whether or not it would have been better then the present or for the worse.

For the survivors it may very well be better, but that is pure conjecture. Quite often millions die when state sponsored terror, purges, deliberate famines are enacted. Yet I suppose that is moral and just since it's "legitimate" "professional" state sponsored murder.

We also do not know what contribution armed populace makes to the freedom of currently free states. It could be 0% it could be 100% or it could be any number in between. Just because it is unknowable does not mean it has no net positive influence.

Basically the argument you advance can be summed up with this: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." usually attributed to Stalin. Motivated by tragic shootings and ignoring the greater tragedy of unchecked state power you have advanced a position that on the surface seems reasonable. However demanding 100% effectiveness in order to be justified and ignoring the fact that armed citizenry is a hedge is bad logic. Also appealing to the premise that might makes right and the state ought to be all powerful is dangerous concept.

"We also do not know what contribution armed populace makes to the freedom of currently free states. It could be 0% it could be 100% or it could be any number in between. Just because it is unknowable does not mean it has no net positive influence."

so, are you one of those americans who thinks that his country is so exceptional that all comparative social science research is irrelevant? Because, worldwide, there is absolutely no correlation between democracy/ good government indices and gun ownership. so, while you can talk about epistemological limits of social sciences research and explain away particularities in each data point, it seems a little willfully ignorant to ignore the lack of correlation entirely to say its completely unknowable. Furthermore, look at the mechanics of such a scenario. At what point do policymakers get deterred by gun ownership? I don't see when it's happened nor how it could happen.

whatever, tho, your last line shows that you completely don't get what he's saying.

I applaud the courage of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto who went to their deaths fighting. Obviously, there was no right to private gun ownership in Nazi Germany. Had there been a right to private gun ownership in Nazi Germany, it would clearly not have applied to Jews or to partisans in occupied territory. Had there been a right to private gun ownership in Weimar Germany, the Nazis would have rescinded it and calmly gone house to house in the 1930s confiscating guns; anyone who resisted would have been killed or sent to a concentration camp, just like anyone who published an anti-Hitler leaflet was. It wouldn't have mattered much.

It's important not to confuse the fact that popular militias can inflict considerable costs on occupying armies, and often cause the occupying nation to decide it's not worth the cost and withdraw, with any claim that popular militias contribute to *domestic* freedom in peacetime. Look, you could conceivably make an argument that popular militias would be a viable alternative to having professional US armed forces. You could say militia would be sufficient to deter the threat of invasion by Mexico or Canada and that we don't actually need global armed forces at all. But nobody's making that argument. Given that we have substantial armed forces (indeed, we spend as much on "defence" as the rest of the world combined), we don't need militias for defence.

The remainder of the argument is that popular militias deter domestic tyranny. But they don't. The Nazis weren't deterred by the possible threat of Warsaw ghetto uprisings; the Nazis lived for that s***. Get everybody out in the street with the long knives, and they knew they'd win the fight, because they were the bloodthirstiest; the more mayhem in the streets, the more support there'd be for fascism.

I think you have a model in mind in which freedom-loving gun owners respond to rising illiberal state encroachment on rights by rebelling against the govt, and so the govt hesitates to encroach on rights for fear of rebellion. But that's just not the way anything has worked since the evolution of the modern state in the 18th century. And it's not a way that things could conceivably work today.

My dear writer after reading up to this point I have decided to not read your article any longer. "Obviously, Joseph Story was wrong. Militia are hopelessly inadequate as a means of defending a free country. While "people's war" militia-based strategies have been employed to wear down invading armies in numerous countries over the past century, not one of those countries (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, southern Lebanon, etc) is "free"----- Obviously your myopic analysis and obscure comparison is indeed one with a failed logic. Let me try and explain as to why anything said here is a failed solution and comes short of an in depth analysis. Let me start by quoting you "Freedom is the product of orderly democratic governance and the rule of law." The United States is a free country with an orderly democratic governance ruled by law already. That freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution which includes your freedom of speech and my right to bear arms. The purpose that you came short of understanding is the militia in this country protects the Constitution that guarantees the democratic principals and governance you talk about. Our Constitution works well, guarantees your rights and no one can threaten that both domestic and foreign and the 2nd Amendment guarantees that. Your comparison and analysis fails from every angle because what these countries are doing now we did so 300 years ago. We formed a militia fought off the tyrants, established a Constitution and empowered the people to protect it with their lives and gave them the freedom to do so. Our philosophy I can safely assume is the only reason you don't live under some tyrant as if your of some European descent I'm sure your ancestors did so. So before you criticize our 2nd Amendment look yourself in the mirror and think of this. " You have the freedom you do and the right of speech along with various other rights because we the people in the United States established a model Constitution that the entire world looks up to, and we the people will protect that right you have from any threat" Have a very nice day.

And yet I fail to see one instance in the history of the US, not one mind you, where the "militia" as you define it has had any role in advancing either this democracy or its defense. The National Guard, with a well established history, has long taken the role of "militias." You should be taken outside and shot by Che Guevara and his "militia."

Your bigoted ignorance is bliss. Perhaps you should grab a book or two. If you insist I can recommend a local library at a nearby elementary school, there you can start from the basics and seek the librarian's help which I'm sure you will. This way when you post a comment or make a statement you can better be informed and when your analysis fails, you wont wish death upon your opponent. Obviously your insight and intelligence is fully embedded in your limbic system.

The author begs the 'chicken and egg' question of democratic institutions. Find Guido Tabellini's paper, "Culture and Institutions" at CEPR #6589. We'll choose order as long as we believe in order. If gun ownership helps us believe, then who can say that gun ownership (and the associated, rugged individualism) isn't the bulwark of US democracy?

ahh, here it comes--the ad hominem attack. Always at last the physical breakdown of the immoralist's bad manners and idiocy. If one can't counter an argument you simply attack the person. Lucky for you we're not in a room together, you with your baldness and fatness and your guns and me with my saber and muscle crunching wrestling moves. You'd soon be missing a nose--and your pride. Oh, wait, you've already lost your pride when you descended into the argument of beasts. BTW, you may find many of my works in many libraries. Balatro.

blah blah blah what a world you live in. Full of stereotypical assumptions and imbecile logic. I have descended into the argument of beasts, but yet you wish death upon a complete stranger because of his opinion? Perhaps your only work at the library would be maintaining the mythical isles and making sure they're dust free. You will soon figure out that I will not waste another second replying to your discriminatory and arrogant views. Seems like you very much enjoy these online wrestling contests and I for some strange reason have managed to waste 5 precious minutes of my life replying to your deranged thoughts. You enjoy the rest of your year and I truly wish you the best.

So many so-called 'gun-rights conservatives' paint all who disagree as 'liberals' with their broad brush. But, here is what I have observed in my time: I've always considered myself conservative until the term was co-opted by the far right, and discovered I am now a liberal in their eyes. Second, I know a fair amount about guns, having served in the Marines and handled many types of military weapons - including observing them from the wrong direction. These so called 'conservatives' are seriously mistaken in their fairy-tale assumptions that this and many other 'liberals' like me know nothing about military weaponry.

That brings me to my main points. I've noticed many if not most of these Second Amendment blatherers never actually put their money where their mouths are by serving in the military themselves. So many were the frenzied cheer-leaders for Bush's two wars from their couches and armchairs, and that's exactly as far as that went. Another observation is most of these Second Amendment 'patriots' seem to need their guns to make up for testosterone deficiencies. I can see no other valid excuse for it. Any person who needs a military style weapon to feel manly or 'safe and secure', is seriously lacking in self worth, and most likely backbone and grit too.

I realize I am using a broad brush here myself, and not all Second Amendment supporters fit this profile. But my observation is a solid majority do, and I get so very, very weary of listening to their belligerent nonsense. So, please spare the rest of us and work on improving your self worth instead. You will find testosterone pills much cheaper than guns too.

Pitiful ad-hominem attacks rarely advance an argument. At least try something new and non-pitiful instead of the cliches please.

And are you seriously advocating that everyone who is in favor of a particular policy devote their lives to the enactment of that one policy? Have you not got the memo that we are in the day and age of the specialized labor?

A quick anecdote: you think the Dr and his family who were beat, raped and murdered in Connecticut felt like they lacked backbone and grit? Would a weapon have served them well in that instance? Where were the Marines?

Sorry malacapricornis, I must have missed that memo. But judging from your splatter of blather, I sense it missed the mark with you since your ramble of nonsense little relates to my comment.

I don't know about the doctor in Connecticut, but your coulda, shoulda, woulda conjecture is the typical gun idiot rote response. Things happen and having a gun handy might have changed the outcome but who knows in which way. As for the Marines, we were enforcing your right to make a damned fool of yourself. You're welcome.

As a fellow Marine, I applaud your service. Also, I think it would be great if we could stop calling one another "liberals" or "conservatives". Most thinking members of society have both liberal and conservative views depending on the issue under consideration. I'll grant you, there are those who just "tow the party line" but they are somewhat of an insult to thinking people everywhere. We really should rise above that.

As for gun ownership. It is a question of utility isn't it? As a Marine, I was overjoyed to turn my SAW or M16 into the armory after playing in the mud. As a civilian, I can't imagine carrying a weapon on my person. The cost benefit analysis just doesn't compute for me - I just don't look like a very attractive victim.

However, the conceal carry analysis is different for my wife or my mother. For them, carrying a snubbie makes more sense. The analysis is especially different in the case of a home defense weapon. For me, a louisville slugger is probably sufficient. For them, something that goes bang is a good idea.

But it is important to remember, we aren't discussing personal preference here. We are talking about policy changes. When it comes to policy, as a rule, I think more freedom is better (and cheaper) than more restrictions and regulations.

On a personal level, I don't drink - but I think outlawing alcohol would be a bad idea. I don't smoke - but I wouldn't recommend outlawing cigarettes. I've never tried recreational drugs - but I'm in favor of legalizing most of them and of more drug treatment and fewer jail sentences for users of the others.

Guns are the same - I don't have one at home - but my wife does. My mother does at her house too. So I don't favor outlawing them. I wish I lived in a kinder, gentler society that took care of its citizens. But America is pretty cold. No healthcare, no childcare, no mental health care, no safety nets. Hundreds of thousands of vets - like you and me - on the streets. Yet it doesn't stop us from proposing benefits for illegals.

People are far more afraid in this country. When I've traveled throughout Europe and Oceana, I didn't see that fear. People there were more likely to follow their bliss and know that either the government or extended family would keep them from starving if their plans temporarily fell short.

Not so here. America is more dog eat dog. More me and less we. More "I got mine and I'm gonna keep all of it whether I earned or inherited it...don't you dare raise my taxes to help those less fortunate" and less "we are all in this together". Our wealth distribution has become markedly more polarized. When that happens, you have more dissatisfaction, more crime, more violence. Inevitably.

People in such an environment need a means of defending themselves - because the criminals will have it. Look at Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, for examples - lots of gun control - lots of income disparity - lots of crime. Criminals all have guns. Honest people don't. Not good.

I'd submit to you that, whether we'd like to admit it, the US has been heading in that direction since 1980. We can pretend we are more like Switzerland or Sweden - but in reality we are looking far more like Mexico. It isn't popular to admit but it is true.

It is also sad, because America could be great again if we'd just take care of some basic housecleaning and provide our citizens with the basic platform they need to achieve. It isn't complicated, but people don't want it, because it would look like work and sacrifice. Those are politically unpopular positions.

Yes ljloenw, I am not against gun ownership, just the irresponsible calls for little or no restrictions, which makes it so easy for the crazies to get their hands on weapons like the so-called assault rifles. There is no sane reason not to have proper control, registration and regulation of deadly weapons, then strict enforcement of the laws. We do it for almost everything else, so why don't we do it for guns? The excuse is always 'only the bad guys will have the guns', and while that is partly true, it is also true our society doesn't seem to be serious on strict enforcement. Politicians for the most part are afraid to touch the issue thanks to the NRA and the guns and ammo industries - but that is changing.

You mention Europe, but remember theirs was once a very violent region too culturally, and over time they worked through it to become the relatively peaceful place it now is. We only need the will and desire strong enough to do it ourselves, and strong, courageous leadership to see it through. No doubt that would take decades - but it must be done and public sentiment is now moving in that direction after all these tragedies. Otherwise, we can only continue the crazy violence which claims all the innocent lives along with the bad guys.

When I first got out of service, I carried a sidearm for a while - 'concealed carry', but in two years time I got in several situations where I felt the need to display it several times, and even use it once. Thankfully, I missed (so much for that military training!) and that experience made me question my need to carry. I stored my magnum away and oddly, have never even once felt the need for a gun since - years now. I think there is something about going around armed that makes people more subconsciously assertive than they ought to be - like that George Zimmerman guy. Couple that with fear and paranoia and unfortunately, that breeds situations ripe for disaster for all concerned, again like Zimmerman.

I too was glad to turn in my weapon when I discharged, and I still keep a few at home for hunting, or home defense I suppose if it came to that. But, somehow I have never felt the need for anything like a Bushmaster with a thirty-round magazine. Why ever in the world should anyone need that unless they are paranoid? Actually, I do know a few who insist on owning such things, and to a man(?), they are all fearful, insecure paranoids - the very type who should not be around dangerous firearms!

LOL, so you felt the need to wave a gun around in people's faces, that seems came about because of carrying your stones in a holster and you are trying to lecture people about projecting their manliness into a gun? You have got to be kidding.

Well then Neal Weaver, here you are predictable as rain, making an asinine retort without concerning yourself about the background or context - the most common identifying characteristic of all ideologues. Obtuse personal attacks and insults are poor debate tools, and reveal much about the user.

"As for the Marines, we were enforcing your right to make a damned fool of yourself. You're welcome."

Is this what you tell yourself you were accomplishing while serving in the armed forces?

Tell me, what threat to our rights was it exactly that you were repelling? Last I checked, the Afghans and Iraqis have never attempted to invade the US, nor have they attempted to curtail the rights of Americans through subversion or legislation. At the same exact time, however, the US Government has indeed diminished the rights of Americans through subversion and legislation. Do you mean to tell me that as a marine you were out hunting Congressmen?

Sorry nutbastard, but your ramble makes no sense. I've never hunted Congressmen, though I do feel some ought to be. If you know anything about military service, you know a military person must go where their government sends them and do what their government orders them to do - since time immemorial. There is little to no choice, and and that goes for the 'repelling' of Afghanis and Iraqis by prosecuting Bush's wars too.

Nutbastard, I think you may be having a Don Quixote moment. By definition, Marines and all armed forces are instruments of government policy, and its enforcement. Part of government's purpose is to protect and enforce the Constitution. All US military personnel swear an oath to do exactly that upon enlistment, as follows:

"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Whether or not the particular government policy being utilized at any point in time actually does that is not up to the individual.

It absolutely is up to the individual. The oath is one of allegiance to the Constitution, not to the government. A President that has policies or gives orders contrary to the Constitution is then by definition a domestic enemy whose authority is negated, and who then is no longer a legitimate President, having violated his oath of office.

I would love to have joined the military and absolutely would have if their purpose was what it is and always was intended to be, which is the defense of the country and the preservation of the principles upon which it was founded.

So what kept you out of the military anyway nutbastard? You can't imagine how actual veterans get so sick of all the "coulda-shoulda-woulda" nonsense out of 'super-patriots' like you. Are you one of the ones who refused to put your own butts on the line and let someone else stand up for our country instead? Must we then watch and listen as you brag to everyone who will listen what a great American you are? That makes you not the wonderful patriot you think yourself to be, but a pitiable 'Chickenhawk' instead. Please spare us your sermons!

Would any argument in either direction will be effective? If you opine that guns are just a tool and regular law-abiding people should be able to own them - just as they are permitted to own a hammer or axe - they will call you a knuckle-dragging, troglodyte, redneck, NRA supporter. If you suggest that guns should be regulated, you are an aging, hippie, liberal douche.

Suppose you're well-educated, have served in combat zones, believe that healthcare, mental health care, daycare, childcare, safety nets, and university education should be free to all citizens. You believe social contract theory is fine and higher taxes are fine as long as the citizens of the nation actually receive value for their money.

You believe drugs should be legalized and taxed, employers should be free to have their own nationally-funded drug-testing policies and requirements, and those who choose to act in ways that endanger others (whether under the influence or not) should be held fully accountable for their actions.

Regarding firearms, you believe people should have the right to own what they want (within reason), and there should be background checks that cover all members of a household, mandatory education for all owners, and that people should be accountable for their firearms.

Basically, you've learned that trying to control everything is a fools game. It didn't work with alcohol. It doesn't work with drugs. It won't work with guns. All you'll do is disarm law-abiding citizens and give an absurdly disproportionate advantage to violent criminals. A review of the facts, comparing apples to apples (same nation or location), will confirm this.

Taxes and subsidies work. Impose additional fees on gun purchases - fine. Make it more expensive to own a firearm. Those who really want a basic firearm or two for home defense will budget accordingly. Require mandatory firearms training courses for non-police or military personnel - so people will understand and apply proper safety and storage procedures.

Accidents could be avoided if firearms owners all had a training course or two on proper storage and use of firearms. In the Conn situation, if the mother had been restricted from buying firearms with an obviously mentally ill son living at home, there would have been no problem. If she'd had a basic gun safe or even a simple trigger lock on each weapon, which would have been advised in any good training course, the event also could have been avoided.

Countless preventable accidents occur because parents don't take the time to educate themselves and their children on the safe use and storage of firearms and to impart to their children that firearms are not a toy.

As for the argument that "no militia has ever defeated a professional army" - there are many examples throughout history that, arguably, suggest otherwise - consider our own insurrection against Great Britain. But even if this argument is true - so what? Showing a willingness to fight isn't always about winning.

Often just showing a potential attacker(s) that you are willing to fight (even though you know you will likely lose) is enough to encourage a more peaceful resolution of a dispute. Bullies don't want to pick on littler kids whom they know will fight back. The littler kid may lose but the bully won't walk away unscathed. Bullies prefer docile victims - and no army wants to win a pyrrhic victory.

No army really wants to go house to house rounding up "subjects" when the subjects have firearms. Will a subject with a bolt action rifle or pump shotgun be able to beat a platoon of trained soldier breaking into his home - no way.

But with even minimal training and the ability to take up a defensive position, he shouldn't have much trouble taking down the first man through the door - body armor or not. This will discourage any professional army. The point being again - it isn't always about winning - but rather increasing the costs to a potential enemy.

Objectively, most firearms owners are law abiding, solid citizens. The red neck NRA supporters are the most vocal but they are one extreme end of the spectrum just as the "ban everything" people are at the other extreme end of the spectrum.

Most gun owners, in my experience, are just regular people who view responsible ownership of a firearm as a basic freedom and a form of insurance. To such people, firearms are a tool - nothing more and nothing less. Most don't see what all the fuss is about.

If you're a 110 lbs female with small children, someone is bashing in your front door at 0200, and you know the police will respond in an hour or so after they finish their donuts and the dispatcher asks you a litany of stupid questions, you are glad to have a firearm. If you've never been in that position, congratulations. If you have, you might understand.

"But I also have no problem arguing that the damn thing ought to be repealed. It has nothing to do with any important human freedoms"

I agree that it should be repealed, but it most certainly does touch upon one of the most important human freedoms - the right to self-defense - and, as such, must be replaced with an Amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear such arms as are reasonable for personal self-defense.

Obviously it would be for the Supreme Court to determine what constitutes a "reasonable" firearm. The Justices certainly are not IT experts, but that doesn't prevent them from ruling on what constitutes reasonable searches of electronic devices and communications.

This seems to be how it currently interprets the Second Amendment, anyway, so there would be little practical effect from such a change. But it would allow the Court sufficient flexibility to update what is considers a protected weapon as technology and society evolve without issuing a ruling that violates the letter of the law.

"It has nothing to do with any important human freedoms, and any of the founders who thought it did were wrong."

So the U.S. Constitution, which other people and countries aspire to emulate (with varying degrees of success) was put in place by a country that defeated a colonial power with the best trained and most effective standing army that the world had seen to that point.

That standing army was defeated by an army that was composed of militias that had done well enough to cause the crown to send more troops and to convince the French to send troops and supplies to support us.

No one is going to argue that a professional army is going to be more effective than a militia or group of militias, it doesn't take a college graduate to figure out that being a professional at anything gets better results than doing it part-time.

The author claims that militias can't hold their own against a military, so it would appear that the author doesn't pay much attention to, or just ignores, what has happened and is is now happening overseas.

If I remember correctly, the Libyans mounted an "insurrection" and managed to overthrow Qaddafi's government.

And, Libya now has an elected government - it may not be what the U.S. wanted, but it is still a democratically elected government.

I'm sure the author will point to the tribal fighting still going on, but I would point out that the U.S. experienced several spats, to include several states almost going to war with each other, before things finally settled down in the late 1700s.

And I think the Syrian "insurrection" is doing pretty well for itself to this point.

And neither one of them started out with an organized militia.

Oh, and I would remind the author that the Revolutionary War, you know, the one that won us our independence and enabled our forefathers to vote to adopt the Constitution that established "orderly democratic governance and the rule of law", was an insurrection in the eyes of the British crown.

It all depends on which side you're on.

The author unequivocally states that militias have no chance against modern armies because they have no machine guns, rockets, etc.

The author highlights his complete ignorance of a concept that even the most primitive guerilla instinctively understands: You use the weapons you have to acquire more effective weapons of war.

Again, I point to Libya and Syria.

While a bolt action rifle can be used to accomplish that task, anyone with an ounce of intelligence will choose a more effective weapon to start with when it is available.

I have this to say to the author and the many others like him: You can choose to surrender your life to the government and believe it will protect you and ensure that you and your liberty will never be abused or infringed upon.

History is against you, but it is your right to choose to be ignorant and make yourself a target and a victim.

You do not have any right, however, to force other people to choose the same ignorance and to make themselves equally vulnerable to the whims of anybody who might choose to target them.

You have over-simplified several aspects and completely ignored other historical facts to make your point.

Simply put, the US revolution was successful because the "inexperienced militias" were being led by an experienced military officer, they successfully fought a guerilla war before the word guerilla was even invented (it came from the Spanish fighters who waged a similar war against the armies of Napoleon) and they were all using similar equipment, thus there were no severe discrepencies between fire-power abilities on the field. What's more, had the British been able to field a real force against the colonists, it would have been a short-lived rebellion. Britain was heavily engaged in wars elsewhere during the revolt and thought at the time that they could come back and deal with the problem at a later date. Had they sent a number of seasoned regiments from Europe to deal with it, the end result would have looked quite different.

Libya is actually an argument against your point. The rebels were getting destroyed until the UN backed a NATO-operated no-fly zone which morphed into a targetted bombing campaign taking out the government's tanks and artillery pieces. The rebels would have had their heads mounted on stakes lining the highways had NATO not intervened.

Syria is a disaster, and there is still no guarantee that the rebels will win against the government forces, however it is very definately NOT a civilian insurrection. It began as such, but when military units began defecting it became an all-out civil war. Had those military units not defected, this would have ended many months ago.

Do you honestly believe that a handful of Timothy McVeighs will grab their AR-15's and launch an attack on Fort Hood to gain access to the heavy weapons, and succeed? Other than in a big-budget hollywood movie, where would you see such an insane plot? They would be blown to the next world faster than you can say "hillbilly" before they even reached the gates.

If your intent is that the power of the military should be off-set by civilian fire-power, then you should be lobbying to lift bans on heavy weapons and permit sale of M1-A1 tanks to neighbourhood watch block captains in the suburbs. Perhaps you could allow weekend flight clubs to own F-18's?

Lets, see...
I pointed out that the U.S. army was organized from militias...it should have been apparent that by army, I meant an organized and professionally led military force.
No one has ever claimed that we did not use a professionally led army, only that the basis for that army was the militias.
As far as militia experience, we have several hundred thousand veterans who have experience fighting insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas.
The British obviously miscalculated, which is in itself a very effective weapon in war and one that even modern, professional armies with the greatest intelligence and survelliance capabilities that the world has ever seen continue to fall prey to.
The British didn't exactly send the misfits over to fight us. They had soldiers fighting on their side that experience in the same wars that our soldiers did.
The British also brought in professional mercenaries, such as Prussians, who were very experienced at what they did.
Libya and Syria are in no way arguments against my point. In both cases, the home-grown insurgencies were successful enough to attract outside support that thought they had a chance, whether it was or is from NATO, the Arab League or even Al Qaeda.
The intervention of those outside forces, as well as defections from the military, are what make those insurgencies successful.
In both cases, that support for the insurgencies materialized, just like it did for us during the Revolutionary War.
Timothy McVeigh was an idiot.
The constant association of him with anyone who openly speaks of protecting themselves and their liberties from the government and the likes of Michael Bloomberg is just old.
It's the arrogant and immature adult's version of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Unless and until it happens (and may God grant it never does), we will not know how effective or ineffective a group of American rebels will be in battle against US Government forces. Probably JMSZ is correct and a large popular rebel movement would be joined by defecting regular US military forces with their weapons, and/or foreign support. (It should be remembered that US military officers, as a class, are overwhelmingly politically conservative Christians, many of whom love their privately owned gun collections.) That said, the last time a large percentage of Americans (including much of the Army's leadership) got together to (in their minds) defend their rights against an overreaching Federal government, was 1861, and it didn't work out too well for the rebels.

M.S.'s basic point, though, is correct: Mr. Williamson's argument (which I hear often from gun rights advocates) is a terrible and terrifying one to make. No one who favors gun control will ever be persuaded to change their mind by this line of reasoning, even if it does have colonial roots. Much better to talk about individual self-defense against criminals, hunting, sports, tradition, and even promoting military readiness among civilians as a preparedness measure against a future war requiring full mobilization (the US military still sells civilians surplus WWII rifles under the Civilian Marksmanship Program for this reason). Don't tell people you need guns to overthrow the government; such statements prove why your guns should be taken away.

You said that armed civilians have/are succeeding in Libya and Syria. My point stands, they didn't and they aren't. It took NATO to bomb Libya into submission and it required the army to turn on itself in Syria. NATO could have still bombed Libya without the armed civilians shooting the place up and without the Syrian army fragmenting, everything but the crying would be finished there.

I stand by my assertion, a crowd of armed hillbillies swinging their assault rifles will do nothing more than kill a few soldiers and piss off the military. Then they will get carpet-bombed back to the stone age. The US military is simply too powerful to be overcome by retail-weaponary.

Timothy McVeigh might well have been an idiot, but it doesn't stop him from being the poster-boy for the militia movement. And I don't need to associate him with the guns-for-all movement, that association stands the test of time and has for many years. Not my fault I am only pointing out the truth.

Arming the populace with 15 or 25 round rifles will not defeat the US military. It will, however, do wonders for creating more school massacres.

As to your earlier point about the wonderful American Constitution. Many countries have equally free (or more depending on how you read the Patriot Act) citizenry. We do not strive to emulate the American constitution. We view it as a 200+ year old document that might be in need of a refresher. When you start viewing an ancient document as firm and the only discussion about a point you can have is to attempt to argue writer's intent, you are stuck with the bible and modern Christianity. Neither are a workable solution.

No matter how smart Washington and Jefferson were, I can guarantee you that they did not foresee F-18's, 50-cal machine guns, flame throwers, RPG's, M1 tanks, etc, etc. You need to reevaluate your society based on the technologies and reality of 2013, not those found in 1776.

The individual right to own and use firearms extends from the right to self-defense. The right of self-defense applies to common criminals as well as to the government.

I understand where you're coming from, however, while Mr. Williamson's argument may be a terrifying one, it is still an essential part of the argument.

While I agree with you that the more common uses of firearms for sporting, hunting and self-defense need to be the central part of the discussion, the ability to defend against (not overthrow) the government is the starting point for the discussion, i.e., having that ability is not negotiable.

The point that I was making was not that anybody wants to or should want to overthrow the government, rather, the people must have the ability to present a viable threat to any government attempt to overstep its bounds.

The problem is that right now, most gun control advocates approach the issue from the standpoint that even owning a gun is, or should be, a privilege that the government can just take away.

Another problem is that many gun control advocates push for gun controls that are in cities to be applied everywhere, without even considering whether those controls will work or are even necessary in the first place.

Until those two issues are dealt with, we won't get anywhere on this issue.

The more important reason why this comment is off-base is that of the "other people and countries" who "aspire to emulate" the US Constitution, almost none include anything remotely like the Second Amendment. The same people and countries you're appealing to think that aspect of the US Constitution is a mistake, not something to be admired and emulated.

The American citizens did not 'defeat' the most trained and effective force in the world (the British). The British relied on their navy and had by no means better troops than the Prussians, Austrians, Russians or French.

Besides the British' elite regiments were stationed in Europe to fight wars there.

I don't accept the author's idea that the Second Amendment guarantees no individual right to keep and bear arms, but I think this piece makes a number of good points.

Chief among them, it convincingly counters the disturbingly common argument that the only thing keeping a bloodthirsty, tyrannical government at bay is citizens with rifles. It is certainly true that popular ownership of firearms would be less than effective for this purpose. Even moreso, if it really were true, the nation would have crumbled into civil war far sooner than this over the issue (and far more often than we have).

Stable democracies are built not on fear of armed rebellion, but on respect for popular sovereignty and the institutions that maintain it, inculcated in the citizenry (and hence the representatives) through patriotism, practice, and sound reason.

where are the so-call "pro-life" activists at Newtown, Auror, Columbine, Virginia Tech....I, for one, would appreciate some some real commitment to the value of life when people on both side of the abortion debate can unite to stop this insanity of firing assault weapons on our school children.

More children have died in accidental drowndings since columbine than have died in active shooter senarios at schools.
Why is nobody trying to ban pools? Or force every house with a pool to pay for a full time life-guard? Or use tax money to put life guards at every swimming hole in and around suburbia?
So many people die in car accidents, why don't we limit all cars to 25 mph? why not require 5 point harnesses and helmets? why not full roll cages and neck braces like NASCAR?
If you want to save lives, you have better things to do than worry about "assault weapons."